Posted by
The Hermit Crab on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 1:47:58 PM
Before this year, I was a many-year, very satisfied member of the NRA. However, events this year have shaken my faith in the organization's leadership. Many of us were shocked when it surfaced that the NRA's Political Victory Fund was considering endorsing Harry Reid (D-NV), the current Senate Majority Leader, who has an awful record when it comes to gun rights (and most other Constitutional rights, as well), against pro-gun stalwart Sharron Angle. When we wrote to object to this idea, we received an insulting form
reply.
Arguably worse has been the NRA's shameless sleazy dealing with the would-be restrictors of free speech. Instead of taking an uncomplicated, principled stand against the DISCLOSE Act sponsored by the twin sleazoids Charles Schumer (D-espotic) and
Chris Van Hollen (D-isgusting), the NRA sought and received a "carve-out" that would preserve their freedom of speech, while allowing the rights of smaller groups (some allies of the NRA) to be smothered. Unsurprisingly, this brought the organization a good deal of criticism. Also unsurprisingly, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox defended the NRA against the criticism in his NRA HQ Bulletin in the September issue of their America's First Freedom magazine.
Surprisingly, Cox's peevish, hypocritical, and offensive reply actually makes matters worse.
First, the substance: Cox is naive to think that the "carve-out" would last long. It would only last as long as it takes for a leftist pressure group, or even an anti-gun-rights group like the Violence Policy Center or the Brady Campaign to find an activist judge to rule that the special status is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and the NRA's priviledge would vanish. Perhaps it would be a good thing if Cox learned all of the Constitution, and not just the first two amendments to it.
They also seem willing to protect themselves, and forfeit all of the advantages of having allies with similar goals. It isn't just arrogant for the NRA to agree to a membership-minimum line for the carve-out that preserves their own free-speech rights, while leaving the rights of all other pro-2nd Amendment groups unprotected, it's foolish and short-sighted. Short-sighted, because anyone who knows how our courts work these days knows that the special priviledge will last only as long as it takes for a federal judge to declare it unconstitutional as a violation of "equal protection under the law". Instead of invalidating the whole law for the many, the judge will eliminate the priviledge for the few. Foolish, because by negotiating a bar for the "carve-out" so high that the NRA qualifies, but no other 2nd Amendment group does, they make it too transparent that they are trying to convince the members of the other organizations that they must join the NRA in order to have their associational free speech rights respected. They also guarantee that if they themselves come under focussed atttack, they will receive no support from the other gun groups, and in truth they will not deserve any.
Cox makes his bad case in a bad way -- with arrogance, petulance, and dishonesty. He claims that the NRA holds the "ultimate responsibility for defense of the Second Amendment" in their hands. While the NRA is the largest pro-gun group, they are about 4 million members in a country of over 300 million. The American people as a whole are reponsible for protecting their rights. No one organization is.
He justifies his failure to side with the Chamber of Commerce in protection of their mutual right to be heard by referring to the NRA's refusal to join the Chamber in backing illegal immigration amnesty, or when they supported Sonia Somediocre for the Supreme Court. In other words, he reminds us of times when the NRA disagreed with the Chamber and refused to support them as justification for not supporting them on an issue upon which the two organizations agree. Rationalization doesn't get more dishonest than that.
He also spends a paragraph whining about the people who have criticized the NRA on these issues, referring to the attacks as "rumor peddling and rock-throwing". He refuses to admit that the critics include some long-time supporters and members of the NRA, who were sincerely distressed at the seemingly shady deal-making that was such an unwelcome contrast to the leadership's usual forthrightness. He writes "Not one of these critics comes near the size,scope, and resources of your NRA". Those measurements are not at issue. The issues are judgment and integrity, and many of us were concerned that the NRA leadership have been falling short of those standards that we had come to expect. We have the right to expect our leaders to be honest and principled -- not arrogant and conniving.
It's long been said that politicians and diapers need to be changed often -- and for much the same reason. Maybe we should add NRA-ILA Executive Directors to that list.